Thanks.Rooster said:Yep, 5" lapels measured from the tip over to the fold.
retrofashion said:Thanks.
That sounds, wide! I never bothered measuring, but what's today "standard"? 3"?
Forgotten Man said:On vintage suits from the mid to late 30's and into the late 40's lapels were rather wide... but, 5" seem to be about right. My self, I don't go by "today's standard"... I go by yesterday's standard! Today's standard can go scratch!lol
FM~
Beats me, the "latest" fashion suit I own is probably 20 years old.....lolretrofashion said:lol I was just trying to get a picture of what's today's standard for comparison. Is 3" about right?
Rooster said:Most of the problem is probably the gain of about 10lbs from measuring for the suit to receiving the suit.....lol
More like 3.5", I'd say. I believe that's what I measured off my modern suits before. It really does depend on the type of lapel though -- that measurement was from a notch. You'd want something wider for a peak so the main "body" doesn't look anorexic. What can skew your perceived width is how much belly a lapel has and the fact that it tapers down from the widest point. Amount of roll also makes a difference. So... a 2.75" lapel from the '60s may read more like 1.75" to the eye. Same with ties.retrofashion said:lol I was just trying to get a picture of what's today's standard for comparison. Is 3" about right?
CharlestonBows said:The trousers are perfect, though. Next time you go with a casual tropic fabric like that, why not give a box pleat front a shot. Makes the knee width a slight bit fuller, but it gives that casual fabric a much cleaner and more elegant drape -- but you must put a generous cuff on it.
p
Jovan said:I still prefer a forward pleat, myself. But those be some well made trousers. What's the fabric composition and weight?
Jovan said:Interesting. I guess the 90s makes it drape a little better than most modern lightweights I see. Mine get wrinkled like linen from sitting in only 10 minutes. :-/